UniversiteitAntu Leiden hp Annual Report Institute for History Matulessy, E.P. Meel, P.J.J. 2017 Doelensteeg 16, 2311 VL Leiden Institute for History Annual Report 2017 Colophon © Institute for History, 2018 www.hum.leiden.edu/history 1 Table of contents Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Boards and Committees 7 3. The Unification of the Mediterranean World (400 BC – 400 AD) 8 4. Europe 1000-1800: Collective Identities and Transnational Networks 23 5. Political Culture and National Identities 1750-present 43 6. Colonial and Global History 1200 - present 79 7. Cities, Migration and Global Interdependence 1350-2000 109 8. History and International Studies 1900-present 137 9. PhD Programme 158 10. Graduate Seminars 160 11. Members 161 2 1. Introduction Introduction For quite a few staff members of the Institute for History, 2017 started with the annual retreat day. The Institute’s PhD programme and the coaching and supervision of the Institute’s PhD candidates served as the central theme of this day. Following up on the recommendations of an internal committee a substantial number of improvements were agreed upon. Later that year preparations commenced regarding the assessment of the Institute’s research. These preparations focused on the writing of the Institute’s self-evaluation report. Other advancements were made in the field of diversity. Energized by the Institute’s Diversity Think Tank initiatives were taken to more effectively and transparently accommodate and include staff in the Institute’s research and teaching community. In terms of research funding and scientific publications the Institute could look back on a successful year. Not unlike previous years a lot of research projects were externally funded, mainly by NWO, and the research output was high as the number of well-received monographs, edited volumes and journal articles demonstrated. Sabbatical leaves were of considerable importance in stabilizing this production. Staff retreat day During the annual retreat day on 25 January 2017 the staff discussed the PhD programme and the coaching and supervision of the PhD candidates of the Institute. Basic to the exchange of ideas and sharing of best practices was a report written by an internal committee consisting of three senior staff members and four PhDs. Having considered the recommendations of the committee the participants in the discussion welcomed the introduction of so-called building blocks (Knowledge & Insight, Transfer of Knowledge, Organization & Management and Communication & Placement). They believed that these would be instrumental in structuring, integrating and making more visible the various components of the PhD programme. The building blocks cover the different research and transferable skills PhDs are expected to train during their contract period. The attendants also favorably received the checklist drawn up by the committee. This list spells out the items considered fundamental to properly conduct a Performance and Development interview between a PhD candidate and his/her supervisor. The items run from the progress of the PhD project and the participation of candidates in PhD courses to the fulfillment of teaching obligations and the quality of the supervision provided by the supervisor. In order to optimize the training of the PhDs and support them to finish their project in time and to prepare for their future career, the staff consented in recruiting a (part-time) PhD coordinator. The latter was expected to safeguard the implementation of the PhD programme, turn the graduate seminar into a graduate conference making use of the intellectual input and practical support of the PhD candidates, supervise the adjustment of the didactical course for PhDs and act – together with the director of research – as confidential advisor of the PhDs. This new coordinator was appointed in the course of 2017. Finally the staff investigated several aspects connected to the admission and supervision of external PhDs. Taking into account the limited time this category of PhDs has to dedicate themselves to their research project and their lack of opportunities to make use of available training facilities, the staff concluded that a well- structured trajectory of supervision, including realistically crafted plans and fixed moments of monitoring, would be most beneficial to external PhDs and their supervisors. Preparations for the research assessment 2018 Following up on decisions taken in 2016 and in anticipation of the 2018 research assessment the management team emphasized the importance of fostering the coherence and sharpening the profile of the six research programmes. In this respect the publication of the annual calendars of the programmes on the Institute’s website proved to be useful. Besides, the Institute invested time and energy in pointing out the need to develop interdisciplinary research initiatives, particularly in view of the changing policy agenda of NWO. It encouraged staff members already conducting interdisciplinary projects to further their lines of research and consider new collaborations with colleagues from other institutes in Leiden and beyond. Against this background the management team started preparing the production of the Institute’s self- evaluation document. Compared to the 2012 assessment the leading Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) had been adjusted. This time the SEP specified the Institute as the unit of analysis (instead of the separate research programmes), stipulated the application of three instead of four criteria (research quality, relevance to society and viability; research productivity was left out) and instructed a ranking of the Institute using a scale running from 1 (highest mark) to 4 (lowest mark) (instead of a scale running from 1 (lowest mark) to 5 (highest mark)). The writing of the self-evaluation document required a close collaboration between the Institute and the support staff of the Faculty of Humanities. The latter particularly monitored the preparatory process and was diligent in providing data and processing these data into tables and graphs. Regular meetings between the faculty staff and the scientific director and the director of research of the Institute allowed for a trajectory disciplining all people involved to work systematically toward the creation of a SEP proof narrative. By the end of 2017 about half of the self-evaluation report had been written. 3 Diversity The Diversity Think Tank of the Institute conducted a survey investigating the staff’s opinions on diversity. A majority of staff considered diversity an important topic and an inclusive workplace vital for the well-being and productivity of employees. They indicated that the Institute could do more to boost awareness about and sensitivity regarding diversity. Two issues stood out. A sizeable number of staff made it clear that a language barrier was affecting their communication with colleagues. Particularly international staff felt that they were kept less in the loop of what went on in the Institute since they not always received important (e-mail) information in English. In spite of the international outlook of the Institute they considered themselves part of a Dutch oriented organization and disadvantaged as they did not (sufficiently) master the Dutch language. In addition, a number of respondents expressed the view that the Institute could be more transparent about its hiring policies and the ambition to create a diverse and inclusive community. They wished the institute to be more open about the conditions staff had to meet in order to be recruited or promoted to a permanent and/or higher position. Although the meetings of the Institute’s Council had been in English for quite some time, the management team understood the problems colleagues addressed in the survey. Having discussed these with the Diversity Think Tank and the Advisory Council the management team decided to take care that as a rule messages directed at the Institute’s staff would be conveyed in Dutch and English or in English only, that sensitivity regarding diversity would be guaranteed in the composition of search committees, and that diversity would be a permanent item on the Institute’s Council agenda. Furthermore, the management team started organizing elaborate introductory meetings for new staff in order to explain the organizational structure of the Institute and the Institute’s policies regarding personnel, budget, research and teaching. Finally, two ‘persons to talk to’ were appointed providing opportunities to discuss issues related to diversity and inclusiveness in a confidential setting. Appointment new professors Monika Baár – Special Chair for Central European Studies Damian Pargas – Raymond and Beverly Sackler Professor of the History and Culture of the US and the Americas Bernhard Rieger – Chair of European History Research funding Research proposals that obtained funding from outside Leiden University are listed below. ZonMw Herman Paul/Gerben ter Riet (AMC Amsterdam) Follow the Money: Does Competitive Research Funding Contribute to Questionable Research Practices? € 150,000 NWO/Zwaartekracht Luuk de Ligt (participant in consortium UL, RU, RUG, UU and UvA) Anchoring Innovation € 800,000 (2 AIO’s, 1 postdoc, replacement De Ligt) VIDI (including ASPASIA) Alicia Schrikker Institutional Memory in the Making of Colonial Culture: History, Experience and Ideas in Dutch Colonialism in Asia, 1700-1870 € 900,000 NWO/Promoties in de Geesteswetenschappen Herman Paul (Larissa Schulte Nordholt) What Is an African